SMMD vs. GRPZ

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

SMMD (iShares Russell 2500 ETF) and GRPZ (Invesco S&P Smallcap 600 GARP ETF) are both Small Cap Growth Equities funds - SMMD tracks the Russell 2500 Index while GRPZ tracks the S&P SmallCap 600 GARP Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, SMMD returned 32.16% vs 30.97% for GRPZ. Their correlation of 0.88 suggests significant overlap in exposure. SMMD charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for GRPZ.

Performance

SMMD vs. GRPZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell 2500 ETF (SMMD) and Invesco S&P Smallcap 600 GARP ETF (GRPZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SMMD achieves a 20.90% return, which is significantly lower than GRPZ's 23.85% return.

SMMD

• 1D: 0.35%
• 1M: 0.58%
• 6M: 12.63%
• YTD: 20.90%
• 1Y: 32.16%
• 3Y*: 16.58%
• 5Y*: 8.99%
• 10Y*: —

GRPZ

• 1D: 0.92%
• 1M: 7.28%
• 6M: 16.11%
• YTD: 23.85%
• 1Y: 30.97%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

SMMD vs. GRPZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
SMMD iShares Russell 2500 ETF	20.90%	11.72%	7.15%
GRPZ Invesco S&P Smallcap 600 GARP ETF	23.85%	3.09%	4.27%

Correlation

The correlation between SMMD and GRPZ is 0.83, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.83
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 27, 2024	0.88

The correlation between SMMD and GRPZ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

SMMD vs. GRPZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	SMMD	GRPZ
Industrials	22.7%	16.1%
Technology	15.8%	7.6%
Financial Services	13.7%	28.3%
Healthcare	13.2%	15.8%
Consumer Cyclical	9.2%	11.8%
Real Estate	7.9%	-
Basic Materials	4.5%	2.3%
Energy	3.7%	12.2%
Consumer Defensive	3.4%	5.3%
Utilities	2.8%	-
Communication Services	2.5%	0.8%

Return for Risk

SMMD vs. GRPZ — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

SMMD

SMMD Risk / Return Rank: 74
SMMD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
SMMD Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
SMMD Omega Ratio Rank: 66
SMMD Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
SMMD Martin Ratio Rank: 82

GRPZ

GRPZ Risk / Return Rank: 70
GRPZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
GRPZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
GRPZ Omega Ratio Rank: 62
GRPZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
GRPZ Martin Ratio Rank: 66

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

SMMD vs. GRPZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 2500 ETF (SMMD) and Invesco S&P Smallcap 600 GARP ETF (GRPZ). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	SMMD	GRPZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.83	1.77	+0.06
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.62	2.70	-0.08
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.30	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.34	3.27	+0.08
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.59	9.39	+3.20

SMMD vs. GRPZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SMMD Sharpe Ratio is 1.83, which is comparable to the GRPZ Sharpe Ratio of 1.77. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SMMD and GRPZ, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

SMMD vs. GRPZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SMMD drawdown since its inception was -41.06%, which is greater than GRPZ's maximum drawdown of -27.87%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SMMD and GRPZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	SMMD	GRPZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-41.06%	-27.87%	-13.19%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.66%	-9.53%	-0.13%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.50%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.26%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.60%	0.00%	-1.60%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.28%	-6.68%	-1.60%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.56%	3.31%	-0.75%

Volatility

SMMD vs. GRPZ - Volatility Comparison

iShares Russell 2500 ETF (SMMD) and Invesco S&P Smallcap 600 GARP ETF (GRPZ) have volatilities of 3.87% and 3.78%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	SMMD	GRPZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.87%	3.78%	+0.09%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.28%	11.77%	+1.51%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.63%	17.53%	+0.10%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.88%	20.87%	+0.01%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.31%	20.87%	+1.44%

SMMD vs. GRPZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

SMMD has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than GRPZ's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

SMMD vs. GRPZ - Dividend Comparison

SMMD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.06%, more than GRPZ's 0.87% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
GRPZ Invesco S&P Smallcap 600 GARP ETF	0.87%	0.97%	0.73%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
SMMD iShares Russell 2500 ETF	1.06%	1.28%	1.27%	1.44%	1.79%	1.12%	1.31%	1.50%	2.45%	0.68%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SMMD and GRPZ in my portfolio?

SMMD and GRPZ have a correlation of 0.83, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, SMMD or GRPZ?

SMMD has higher volatility (3.87%) compared to GRPZ (3.78%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SMMD dropped -41.06% vs GRPZ's -27.87%.

Which ETF is better, SMMD or GRPZ?

On 1-year performance, SMMD leads with 32.16% vs 30.97% for GRPZ. On fees, SMMD is cheaper at 0.15% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SMMD or GRPZ?

Over the 1-year period, SMMD has performed better with a 32.16% return vs 30.97%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SMMD or GRPZ?

SMMD is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for GRPZ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, SMMD or GRPZ?

SMMD has the higher dividend yield at 1.06%, compared with 0.87% for GRPZ.

What is the main difference between SMMD and GRPZ?

SMMD tracks Russell 2500 Index, while GRPZ tracks S&P SmallCap 600 GARP Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for SMMD and 0.35% for GRPZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SMMD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.83 vs 1.77), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.